Sigmoid.7082 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > Doesn't matter if its the whole story or not the part about "is this useful for me?" seems to be something you struggle with. "I don't think this will be good for me", "Well that's ok it may be good somewhere else, expand your thinking outside of activities you take part in.." doesn't invalidate their assessment of for them that it may not be useful for them in the activities they do take part in. Nor does it prevent them for voicing their opinions and concerns about such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taril.8619 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > We aren't narrowly assessing on JUST instanced PvE content though. PvP: Signet of Vampirism < Consume Conditions and thus Trash, same as now. WvW: Signet of Vampirism < Sand Flare and thus Trash, same as now. Instanced PvE: Depends on if new Signet of Vampirism passive damage can out perform Blood Fiend (Including the fact that it will be inactive due to Shroud since Signets of Suffering continues to be trash) but most likely will be Trash, same as now. Open World PvE: Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 I think discussing with @"Taril.8619", @"Josiah.2967" and @"Shadowmoon.7986" will “hide” the comments that are really worth reading, and I doubt they will change their vision. Their idea of the game has clearly nothing to do with what Guild Wars 2 is for most players. Their idea of instanced content is also very far from what instanced content is for most players. They mostly talk like if everyone is a “perfect player” playing in “perfect groups”, and like if every player is the same. The reality is totally different, what is the “best” for someone could not be the “best” for someone else (it could even be a very bad option for many of them). They just watch at what’s the best (not even “everywhere” in the “game mode” they talk about) for a microscopic minority of the GW2 players and consider everything else either “useless”, not “worth”, or “trash”. Fortunately, people at ArenaNet showed, over the years, to not share nor support their vision of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah.2967 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 My Signet of Vampirism thought process for Open World PVE. In an Open World PvE build with Death Magic, Blood Fiend provides: +40 Toughness (Guaranteed) +25% Damage Increase (Minion will do more damge) +50% Health (Can Tank a bit in big pulls) +Can Remove Conditions From You +Death Nova will proc in the extremely rare chance of it dying in Open World PvE. Signet of Vampire would have to be broken to make it a top contender for Open World PvE. My Signet of Vampirism thought process for Instance Content (Raids). The only place I see Signet of Vampire having a chance of being my go to option is instanced PVE. We have quite a few raid bosses that require you to do mechanics, meaning you are not stacking on the boss 100% of the time. My faithful Blood Fiend is doing damage and providing me stable healing while I am unable to stack on the boss doing proper raid mechanics. I do not have survivability issues with any profession I raid with, so this slot is exclusively used for the passive DPS it provides in instanced content. I trust my healers and my ability to avoid damage for instanced PVE. The consistant heals would also make Blood Fiend way better for casual raid players the majority of the time. Taril.8619 covered all other modes. It would really need to be broken to be viable for those. I can not see a reason to recommend Signet of Vampirism to **casuals players** unless it does significant more DPS. In the end, it is just DPS to heal just like Blood Fiend without a lot of the benefits/synergy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taril.8619 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > I think discussing with @"Taril.8619", @"Josiah.2967" and @"Shadowmoon.7986" will “only” hide the comments that are really worth reading. Their idea of the game has clearly nothing to do with what Guild Wars 2 is for most players. Again, you keep talking about "Most Players" But still haven't noticed that most players play only Open World. With most Necro's in OW PvE playing Minion Master. Thus meaning most Necro players will be running Blood Fiend due to the synergy with Minion Master builds. Even looking at build sites like metabattle that feature a lot of casual builds, literally just one build exists that runs Signet of Vampirism (A WvW Signet build) At the end of the day, Signet of Vampirism is not worth picking over other options, but since the game doesn't require optimal play, it can still be used if someone wants to. Just like they can use the Signets of Suffering trait despite that also being not worth taking over other options. The main reason this is an issue, is ANet are probably listening to people like you who have no clue why Signets of Suffering and Signets in general aren't used. Hence why they think nerfing it and pushing it down a trait tier to compete with Awaken the Pain will make it more attractive. Instead of realizing that Signet effects are just bad and would need some adjustments to make them worthwhile. Just to highlight the issues with Signets; - **Signet of Vampirism** - Life Siphon cannot crit so it does not scale well with Power builds. Its ally healing output is far outmatched by Well of Blood and Sand Flare in heal builds. - **Plague Signet** - Uncontrolled transferring of conditions to self is not good especially with limited ways to cleanse conditions (Or transfer). Transferring conditions to an enemy is weak due to low durations (And if your plan is to self condition via Blood is Power and Corrupt Boons with high duration increases and then transfer... It means you're not running Epidemic which is a super important skill for Condi Necro) - **Signet of Spite** - Cooldown is way too long for the active to warrant a Condi build bothering to pick it up and use Signets of Suffering especially given the lackluster number of damaging conditions (2 Bleed, 2 Poison, 2 Torment...) - **Signet of the Locust** - 25% movement speed is not a particularly big deal (Not when Swiftness is handed out like candy and 25% movement speed rune bonuses are not too hard to get). The damage from the active does not scale well at all. Though, I admit, the healing from this skill in OW PvE can be nice, essentially a second heal skill. It's possible that the addition of boonrip might make this usable in PvP/WvW for Bunker builds wanting more sustain with a side benefit of some boonrip. - **Signet of Undeath** - Buffs to LF generation on weapons makes the passive less necessary, with only Scourge really getting much from it due to their ability to expend LF at a high rate constantly. Having Signets of Suffering to reduce the cooldown of the active is unnecessary as allies shouldn't be getting downed that often (Except in PvP... But then again, it's really easy to revive people in PvP, especially if running revive traits like Ritual of Life, given the damage nerfs from the major patch a while back) With again, mention that Signets of Suffering is in a heavily damage focused specialization and competing with strong damage increasing traits. Meaning, people who are picking Spite are doing so because they want damage, not utility. If Signets of Suffering was in Blood Magic, say, instead of Unholy Martyr or was in Soul Reaping, say, instead of Vital Persistence, it might see a better pick rate even with Signets not being that great. Since then it's a utility trait in a specialization where people will be looking for some utility traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 > @"Taril.8619" said: > > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > I think discussing with @"Taril.8619", @"Josiah.2967" and @"Shadowmoon.7986" will “only” hide the comments that are really worth reading. Their idea of the game has clearly nothing to do with what Guild Wars 2 is for most players. > > Again, you keep talking about "Most Players" > > But still haven't noticed that most players play only Open World. With most Necro's in OW PvE playing Minion Master. > > Thus meaning most Necro players will be running Blood Fiend due to the synergy with Minion Master builds. > > Even looking at build sites like metabattle that feature a lot of casual builds, literally just one build exists that runs Signet of Vampirism (A WvW Signet build) > > At the end of the day, Signet of Vampirism is not worth picking over other options, but since the game doesn't require optimal play, it can still be used if someone wants to. Just like they can use the Signets of Suffering trait despite that also being not worth taking over other options. > > The main reason this is an issue, is ANet are probably listening to people like you who have no clue why Signets of Suffering and Signets in general aren't used. Hence why they think nerfing it and pushing it down a trait tier to compete with Awaken the Pain will make it more attractive. > > Instead of realizing that Signet effects are just bad and would need some adjustments to make them worthwhile. Just to highlight the issues with Signets; > > - **Signet of Vampirism** - Life Siphon cannot crit so it does not scale well with Power builds. Its ally healing output is far outmatched by Well of Blood and Sand Flare in heal builds. > - **Plague Signet** - Uncontrolled transferring of conditions to self is not good especially with limited ways to cleanse conditions (Or transfer). Transferring conditions to an enemy is weak due to low durations (And if your plan is to self condition via Blood is Power and Corrupt Boons with high duration increases and then transfer... It means you're not running Epidemic which is a super important skill for Condi Necro) > - **Signet of Spite** - Cooldown is way too long for the active to warrant a Condi build bothering to pick it up and use Signets of Suffering especially given the lackluster number of damaging conditions (2 Bleed, 2 Poison, 2 Torment...) > - **Signet of the Locust** - 25% movement speed is not a particularly big deal (Not when Swiftness is handed out like candy and 25% movement speed rune bonuses are not too hard to get). The damage from the active does not scale well at all. Though, I admit, the healing from this skill in OW PvE can be nice, essentially a second heal skill. It's possible that the addition of boonrip might make this usable in PvP/WvW for Bunker builds wanting more sustain with a side benefit of some boonrip. > - **Signet of Undeath** - Buffs to LF generation on weapons makes the passive less necessary, with only Scourge really getting much from it due to their ability to expend LF at a high rate constantly. Having Signets of Suffering to reduce the cooldown of the active is unnecessary as allies shouldn't be getting downed that often (Except in PvP... But then again, it's really easy to revive people in PvP, especially if running revive traits like Ritual of Life, given the damage nerfs from the major patch a while back) > > With again, mention that Signets of Suffering is in a heavily damage focused specialization and competing with strong damage increasing traits. Meaning, people who are picking Spite are doing so because they want damage, not utility. > > If Signets of Suffering was in Blood Magic, say, instead of Unholy Martyr or was in Soul Reaping, say, instead of Vital Persistence, it might see a better pick rate even with Signets not being that great. Since then it's a utility trait in a specialization where people will be looking for some utility traits. Sorry for not being precise enough (even if it was not that hard to guess), In this case I meant to say most players playing instanced content like Fractals and Raids (cause this is where I can see your logic getting far away from the reality that can be observed), but you can extend it to “most people playing the game” (because everyone “can” play Fractal and Raids). Not that I share your vision of the Open World, but I have not read enough of yours to talk about it. Signet of Sufferings is so useful in PvE exactly because it is in Spite (a heavy damage specialization), so it allows a wonderful combination of very high damage and survivability, plus some interesting utility. Spite was never only damage focused. I will use that trait in many Raids, Fractals and some Strike Missions, the loss of potential DPS will be very low, and I will put to good use what else it has to offer. You can still use Awaken the Pain to maximise your potential DPS. Also, I’m totally sure that most people, in many situations, would deal more damage with Signets of Suffering, Signet of Undeath and Signet of Spite. That is what that trait will provide, it will provide, for most people, the best damage in combination with high survivability and some utility. It will make the Reaper DPS reliable, because without that trait, its DPS is often not reliable at all, since it is often really easy to take enough damage to screw the rotation. I don’t want Signets of Suffering to be moved to Blood Magic, because than we’d have to lose a lot of damage to take it, and for me it would not be worth anymore. It would be a very heavy nerf to power Reaper in PvE. **Signets of Suffering + Signet of Vampirism + Signet of Spite + Signet of Undeath = Reliable very high DPS and very good survivability.** Nothing else can provide that, nothing else can make “consistently reliable” the high DPS of power Reaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 > @"Taril.8619" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > > > > We aren't narrowly assessing on JUST instanced PvE content though. > > PvP: Signet of Vampirism < Consume Conditions and thus Trash, same as now. > WvW: Signet of Vampirism < Sand Flare and thus Trash, same as now. > Instanced PvE: Depends on if new Signet of Vampirism passive damage can out perform Blood Fiend (Including the fact that it will be inactive due to Shroud since Signets of Suffering continues to be trash) but most likely will be Trash, same as now. > Open World PvE: Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use. Again, that appears to be a perspective based on criteria that are not aligned to the game. The Class changes are mainly thematic, not primarily performance and certainly not based on player's SPECIFIC performance criteria and evaluations. The fact that you place OW PVE so low on your list of importance in how these changes are considered is why you aren't going to understand the changes that happen around you to begin with. I actually don't see a problem here. There are numerous choices for healing skills, you seem to have already decided which ones are the ones you would choose for whatever game mode you want to play. That's how it supposed to work. Other people may make different choices based on different criteria that could lead to Signet being the way they want to play. That's a win IMO. To be fair, we need to see what the changes actually are before coming to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowmoon.7986 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 I have been thinking about these changes. With how long it takes anet to change traits because of the spaghetti code (it was once described that they have to complete delete the trait and make the new one from scratch to get it to work in the engine), that these changes would probably have started back in the 2v2 season, remember the one with the broken signet build. These appear 100% pvp based, there was 2 builds that were meta that this update seems to target, the signet bunker and the wells build, which gave aoe prot. These are nerfs to substain sold as buffs, the same as when they did this to focus and warhorn. I suspect well of darkness will get a nerf within a week, my guess, it will pulse every 2 secs instead of every 1 sec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeftheWicked.3076 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 I like the new Dread a lot. It'll help spvp terrormancers, and in PvE core necros which are usually a drag to play compared to other core professions. Giving some elite features to core necro, for players to get a feel and not be ball and chained to a given elite is a good idea (quickness with dread, barrier in blood magic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drarnor Kunoram.5180 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 So, one thing with the Signet of Vampirism change that I haven't seen people bring up is range of the new passive, and I think this will have a lot to do with if it's any good or not. At 180 range, it might as well not exist. At 1,200 range, that is potentially quite good. Plague Signet does have a 1,200 range on its passive, so it's not totally out of the question. So long as the siphon values are around what the current passive heals for, I could see it being somewhat decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taril.8619 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > > > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > > > > > > > We aren't narrowly assessing on JUST instanced PvE content though. > > > > PvP: Signet of Vampirism < Consume Conditions and thus Trash, same as now. > > WvW: Signet of Vampirism < Sand Flare and thus Trash, same as now. > > Instanced PvE: Depends on if new Signet of Vampirism passive damage can out perform Blood Fiend (Including the fact that it will be inactive due to Shroud since Signets of Suffering continues to be trash) but most likely will be Trash, same as now. > > Open World PvE: Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use. > > The Class changes are mainly thematic Wait what? Do you seriously think that the devs make changes based on class themes rather than performance? For real? If that was even remotely close to true, not only would they do considerably less number tweaking, but also Necro's minions wouldn't be so gosh darn awful... Not to mention, the devs themselves in their patch notes mentioned that they are changing the Signets trait because it's not strong enough... > @"Fire Attunement.9835" said: > The necromancer traits for signets and wells have long occupied a difficult place in most builds since they exist on the grandmaster tier and **typically have not provided enough power to warrant taking over other grandmaster traits.** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Taril.8619" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > > > > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > > > > > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > > > > > > > > > > We aren't narrowly assessing on JUST instanced PvE content though. > > > > > > PvP: Signet of Vampirism < Consume Conditions and thus Trash, same as now. > > > WvW: Signet of Vampirism < Sand Flare and thus Trash, same as now. > > > Instanced PvE: Depends on if new Signet of Vampirism passive damage can out perform Blood Fiend (Including the fact that it will be inactive due to Shroud since Signets of Suffering continues to be trash) but most likely will be Trash, same as now. > > > Open World PvE: Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use. > > > > The Class changes are mainly thematic > > Wait what? Do you seriously think that the devs make changes based on class themes rather than performance? > > For real? > > If that was even remotely close to true, not only would they do considerably less number tweaking, but also Necro's minions wouldn't be so gosh darn awful... > > Not to mention, the devs themselves in their patch notes mentioned that they are changing the Signets trait because it's not strong enough... > > > @"Fire Attunement.9835" said: > > The necromancer traits for signets and wells have long occupied a difficult place in most builds since they exist on the grandmaster tier and **typically have not provided enough power to warrant taking over other grandmaster traits.** I think you misunderstood Obtena’s comment. I think it meant to say that whatever they change, even if it is because they feel that a performance adjustment is needed, follows the theme (theme comes first). You can see that, for example, in the history of the changes that necromancer got. Part of the theme of the necromancer was that it was supposed to be “selfish” (selfish is obviously a generalisation and doesn’t mean that it can’t receive or share any support). The changes to Necromancer always followed that them, in fact, we have never got the party support that many people asked for years (you can see that even the changes recently announced are following that theme). I think it is “safe” to say that ArenaNet is aware that “party support” (especially if offensive and unique) could “benefit” the Necromancer, but they don’t want to give that to it (they even told that last thing to us). Another example is Shroud and the link between offence and defence that characterises the Necromancer (Obtena talks a lot about that). It can be observed in game. They (as a company) don’t want to change that. People could even convince ArenaNet that a trait is underperforming in its current place (probably this is what happened and caused ArenaNet to change it), ArenaNet could even end up removing it, but as you can see they generally just replace it with something else that you consider bad (at least for PvE instanced content), probably because there are “themes reasons”. Obviously Signets of Suffering would be very good and effective (for instanced PvE content, but even in Open World, for the vast majority of the players) and you are simply wrong about that subject. We could get something far worse if they remove it. A suggestion: if you don’t want to get stuck in “endless discussions”, focus on trying to understand the point of view of the other person, try to do that assuming that the other person is not contradicting itself. Usually it makes much easier to understand the others, you can apply that even when judging balance patches. Once you understand what’s the reason of the other (even ArenaNet not giving to you what you want), your attempts to get what you want can become more precise and effective. In the case of ArenaNet not giving to you what you want, you could have to convince ArenaNet to change the current theme of the Necromancer. I don’t want that to happen, I’m perfectly fine with its current them, I love it, but I’m telling that to you anyway. Anyway, maybe you could get better satisfaction by changing your expectations and finding “your place” within what Guild Wars 2 is right now. Drastic changes of the theme of a profession, after all these years, would cause a lot of dissatisfaction (necromancer is even a very popular and appreciated profession, the minority that want it to be changed is just “more vocal”, obviously). Offensive and unique party support wouldn’t cause that (at least not amongst Necromancers), but there are other additional reasons preventing Necromancer to get that, someone from ArenaNet told that to us after HoT (they don’t want to add more profession specific enhancement that boost allies damage, they used to think that they are not good for profession inclusion). You could disagree with that, but once you know that, you can explain to ArenaNet why you disagree. If I would want something different for Necromancer, maybe I’d focus my attempts on proposing that for the next Elite Specialization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadnir.5038 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > The changes to Necromancer always followed that them, in fact, we have never got the party support that many people asked for years (you can see that even the changes recently announced are following that theme). That isn't totally true. ANet put quite a lot of party support onto the necromancer along the years. For example _Blood is Power_ was initially purely selfish, _Vampiric presence_ didn't exist at the beginning... etc. > I think it is “safe” to say that ArenaNet is aware that “party support” (especially if offensive and unique) could “benefit” the Necromancer, but they don’t want to give that to it (they even told that last thing to us). Let's rephrase it into: "ANet is aware that "party support" is lacking on the necromancer but they are afraid of the consequences of the "thematically" fitting support that they could give to the necromancer. It all come down to the difference between a "boon" and a "debilitating condition". The boons (like might) are seen as affecting positively a set number of players while the debilitating condition (like vulnerability for example) is seen as having an impact on an unlimited of players." > If I would want something different for Necromancer, maybe I’d focus my attempts on proposing that for the next Elite Specialization. Unfortunately, Elite specialization are also restricted by the philosophy of the core design. They are not "entirely new professions". Which mean that the necromancer is bound to have "low" damage out of shroud, it's defense is bound to be tied to "health bubbles" and the special mechanism is bound to provide the main defense of the necromancer's elite spec. Fondamentally there isn't any "escape path" via elite spec, the design flaws are bound to stay even if you like the theme, these flaws are ingrained within the core. NB.: Also, "theme" and "design" are different things. The design support the thematic but it doesn't mean that the thematic is bound to a specific design. The issue with GW2 professions is that ANet bound them to a set of designs that some people see as the "theme" of the necromancer. The shroud is not the "theme" of the necromancer, it's merely a design that try to express the theme of a profession walking freely between life and death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > The changes to Necromancer always followed that them, in fact, we have never got the party support that many people asked for years (you can see that even the changes recently announced are following that theme). > > That isn't totally true. ANet put quite a lot of party support onto the necromancer along the years. For example _Blood is Power_ was initially purely selfish, _Vampiric presence_ didn't exist at the beginning... etc. > > > I think it is “safe” to say that ArenaNet is aware that “party support” (especially if offensive and unique) could “benefit” the Necromancer, but they don’t want to give that to it (they even told that last thing to us). > > Let's rephrase it into: "ANet is aware that "party support" is lacking on the necromancer but they are afraid of the consequences of the "thematically" fitting support that they could give to the necromancer. It all come down to the difference between a "boon" and a "debilitating condition". The boons (like might) are seen as affecting positively a set number of players while the debilitating condition (like vulnerability for example) is seen as having an impact on an unlimited of players." > > > If I would want something different for Necromancer, maybe I’d focus my attempts on proposing that for the next Elite Specialization. > > Unfortunately, Elite specialization are also restricted by the philosophy of the core design. They are not "entirely new professions". Which mean that the necromancer is bound to have "low" damage out of shroud, it's defense is bound to be tied to "health bubbles" and the special mechanism is bound to provide the main defense of the necromancer's elite spec. Fondamentally there isn't any "escape path" via elite spec, the design flaws are bound to stay even if you like the theme, these flaws are ingrained within the core. > > NB.: Also, "theme" and "design" are different things. The design support the thematic but it doesn't mean that the thematic is bound to a specific design. The issue with GW2 professions is that ANet bound them to a set of designs that some people see as the "theme" of the necromancer. The shroud is not the "theme" of the necromancer, it's merely a design that try to express the theme of a profession walking freely between life and death. Please, consider the whole message, I prefer to not make additional reply just to repeat things. I wrote this: _selfish is obviously a generalisation and doesn’t mean that it can’t receive or share any support._ I’m aware that Necromancer received some “minor support”, but only few minor things. Some Minor support don’t change that it is “selfish”. Those minor things don’t really change much for Necromancer, it can’t fulfil any role with them (I’m excluding the various forms of healing here). Heal is also party support and Necromancer always had it, ArenaNet expanded that over the years and now Blood Magic and Scourge can give something useful to the group (still something bound to the design they have set Blood Magic and Scourge to). I can see that the Elite Specialization are tied to the core design too, but still since people are trying to convince ArenaNet anyway, I see them having more chances with a new Elite Specialization, maybe. Necromancer could be bound to its “design”, not only to the “theme”. That doesn’t change that it is bound and it is a choice that ArenaNet can do. You still have to convince ArenaNet to change their mind, but I’d suggest people to try doing that with some “better argument” (someone already do that). I doubt ArenaNet will ever listen to certain “mindless” and wrong arguments about something being “trash” or “useless” cause of “microscopic” (or “small”) potential dps differences (obviously ArenaNet is perfectly right here, for reasons I stated before). It is also clear that they don’t consider a “parity” between professions performances to be something important. They care about the theme, some design they have set, and the “philosophy” they are following. For Necromancer, they seem to be “happy” when it is somewhat accepted in groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadnir.5038 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > Please, consider the whole message, I prefer to not make additional reply just to repeat things. > I wrote this: _selfish is obviously a generalisation and doesn’t mean that it can’t receive or share any support._ > > I’m aware that Necromancer received some “minor support”, but only few minor things. Some "Minor"? Are you serious? The necromancer gained more than "minor" support since it's release granted that at release it's "support" could have been sumed up by giving regen and prot while trying to cleanse conditions. Now, it heal, grant might, provide very "minor" extra damage through life siphon, grant barrier, convert condition, prevent health decay while down, revive... etc. If anything the necromancer's support have been trippled over the year. Saying that it's "minor" is insulting. You can say it wasn't properly done and I'd agree with you but "minor", that's wrong! > I can see that the Elite Specialization are tied to the core design too, but still since people are trying to convince ArenaNet anyway, I see them having more chances with a new Elite Specialization, maybe. > And like I said, it's highly unlikely because it's the very core of the profession that prevent it. There is no "chance" for the necromancer to satisfy the plea of the necromancer's community via an e-spec unless ANet is willing to heavily powercreep this e-spec. And powercreeping an e-spec to satisfy the customers is the wrong way to do things. > For Necromancer, they seem to be “happy” when it is somewhat accepted in groups. Nope I'd say they are happy when it doesn't make to much noise in any gamemode, especially in sPvP (like every single other profession). T he main issue of the necromancer is that it's balance with sPvP in mind but overperform in zerg v zerg while it underperform in PvE. Such a way to balance could be forgiven before they stated that would split balance based on gamemode but now, it only increase disatisfaction. There is a clear imbalance of the different tools of the necromancer based on which gamemode it is played in. It's proof enough that there is a need to take a step back, analyse the issues and devise a way to correct them. Even if it mean to revise your "philosophy". I said it in another thread but the necromancer's tools are just oppressed by PvE mechanisms while the "self reliance" (more than selfishness) of the necromancer make it work poorly within a group in PvE. The irony being that the opposite is true in sPvP/WvW. This is what need to be corrected. This patch goes into the wrong direction, it give yet again more "self reliance" and doesn't touch the core of the issue the necromancer face in PvE. Which mean that the necromancer community will continue to complain about the necromancer in PvE while the other community will have new reason to complain about the necromancer in sPvP/WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Taril.8619" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > These changes have NOTHING to do with being "efficient" in instanced team content ... so if you want to be influential it affecting them before they go live ... better make some arguments that are inline with how Anet thinks when they make them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Shadowmoon.7986" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you have no clue when it comes to PVE class changes ... it's not only about group content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it occur to anyone how strange it is to claim how much better a healing skill is because it does more DPS? :astonished: You realize how backwards that is right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's backwards, until you realize that due to how enemy mechanics work in this game as well as how healing mechanics work, you don't really care about your personal healing skill in instanced PvE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but PVE in this game isn't JUST about instanced content ... so the answer here isn't what heal is the best (or consequently why some change might be 'bad') ... it's what heal is more appropriate for the content a player is doing ... or how they want to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instanced PvE is the only PvE where ability efficiency is worth noting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That might be relevant if Anet ONLY made class changes because of instance PVE because of efficiency ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here we go again... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dont you guys find it weird? > > > > > > > > > _"No not really, its why we are on about it and this is why"_ > > > > > > > > > ...you're wrong for this thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way to confuse my question with these replies ... completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its perfectly related. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asking if people found it weird and they explicitly told you no and why they don't find it weird to be discussing that at all, the reason their discussing it and why it matters to them, only to be dismissed because of your usual tirade of "this is not how Anet works", "what youre talking about isn't the only thing that matters" and some overwhelming need to start arguments, derail conversations and be right all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Their chat, completely relative to their own context of endgame/ instanced/ organised content, isn't "this isn't going to be useful so it shouldn't be put in", its "its going to be put in so is it going to be useful to me". Very different . Asking for something to be useful is very different to asking if something is going to be useful, again completely within their own context to what matters to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > That STILL doesn't change the fact that class changes aren't put in or not put in because of 'useful' in a specific game element. Unless the skill was split for the different elements, the consideration has to be for ALL game elements. > > > > > > > > > > And this has nothing to do with why it was being discussed. If people want to discuss if a change that is being put in is useful **to them within their own context** you have no right to tell them they are wrong for assessing something based on **their own requirements. ** > > > > > > > > > I don't think i'm telling them that they are wrong as much as I'm telling them that they need to expand their scope of consideration. I mean, if they WANT to narrow their assessment on skill usefulness to JUST instanced PVE content played in the most efficient way, OK ... but we already know that's not the whole story right. > > > > > > > > > > We aren't narrowly assessing on JUST instanced PvE content though. > > > > > > PvP: Signet of Vampirism < Consume Conditions and thus Trash, same as now. > > > WvW: Signet of Vampirism < Sand Flare and thus Trash, same as now. > > > Instanced PvE: Depends on if new Signet of Vampirism passive damage can out perform Blood Fiend (Including the fact that it will be inactive due to Shroud since Signets of Suffering continues to be trash) but most likely will be Trash, same as now. > > > Open World PvE: Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use. > > > > The Class changes are mainly thematic > > Wait what? Do you seriously think that the devs make changes based on class themes rather than performance? > > For real? What is 'for real' is that you didn't understand what I said and until you make a more concerted effort to do so, then by your own choice, you will continue to struggle with trying to understand the class changes in this game. Arguing with me isn't going to help you. A more objective view of how theme impacts class changes WILL. I will also add that if you don't think class changes are influenced by OW because _"Who cares, this mode is faceroll no matter what you use"_, then you will never understand what I'm telling you either. Changes aren't about content difficulty and they aren't about game mode unless it's a split skill. There is a theme there, the changes align to it. I can't begin to believe that after 8 years, that's still a point of denial for people. I mean, if you want to argue that Anet places performance criteria over theme in class changes ... you're going to have a REAL hard time resolving that view with the following: 1. current state of class balance in the game 2. the fact there have been 8 years and dozens of balance patches to achieve it ... but don't let me stop you from trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > Please, consider the whole message, I prefer to not make additional reply just to repeat things. > > I wrote this: _selfish is obviously a generalisation and doesn’t mean that it can’t receive or share any support._ > > > > I’m aware that Necromancer received some “minor support”, but only few minor things. Some > > "Minor"? Are you serious? The necromancer gained more than "minor" support since it's release granted that at release it's "support" could have been sumed up by giving regen and prot while trying to cleanse conditions. Now, it heal, grant might, provide very "minor" extra damage through life siphon, grant barrier, convert condition, prevent health decay while down, revive... etc. If anything the necromancer's support have been trippled over the year. Saying that it's "minor" is insulting. You can say it wasn't properly done and I'd agree with you but "minor", that's wrong! > > > You have still problems reading and understanding (I think you can’t because you are too focused in superficially contesting me. The suggestion I gave to Taril.8619 few messages above could be of great help also to you). I’d appreciate if you would just ignore my messages (unless you can seriously try to understand my thoughts). Talking about “minor”, as already wrote, I was excluding all the healing part (as I said Necromancer always had that, it was deep in its design, and it has been expanded), and obviously Scourge, that by design was supposed to be bring support to Necromancer though an Elite Specialization. I’ll even copy here the suggestion I was talking about: _A suggestion: if you don’t want to get stuck in “endless discussions”, focus on trying to understand the point of view of the other person, try to do that assuming that the other person is not contradicting itself. Usually it makes much easier to understand the others, you can apply that even when judging balance patches._ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 I think we should change the language ... it's not a matter of 'minor' support ... it's a matter of significance. Sure maybe Necro has increased it's support tools 'three times' since release (honestly, i don't know how anyone can quantify that) ... but if it's not a making it a desirable team member ... it really doesn't matter does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigmoid.7082 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 How about we don't let the thread get derailed and go back to discussing the changes? This thread was interesting but it looks like its going to end up like so many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draxynnic.3719 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > I think we should change the language ... it's not a matter of 'minor' support ... it's a matter of significance. Sure maybe Necro has increased it's support tools 'three times' since release (honestly, i don't know how anyone can quantify that) ... but if it's not a making it a desirable team member ... it really doesn't matter does it? I think the amount of extra support necromancer has received needs to be measured against how the game has shifted. On release, GW2 was a game where basically everyone was primarily DPS, and any support they brought was largely incidental apart from stability and stealth (for skips) - and even those were just a matter of adding a couple of utility skills to an otherwise DPS-oriented build. Sure, there were certain things you wanted such as might stacking, but this was usually just a small part of the build. Now, we have healbrands, alacrigades, chronos, druids, and genuine heal eles. Warriors (except banners), thieves, and engineers have always been relatively selfish, but still have their own support-oriented builds. Necromancer having had substantial upgrades to its support doesn't change that it's relatively selfish when there have been substantial upgrades to support across the board. Barrierscourge is a thing, and can be quite helpful in some circumstances, but it's far from being the first thing people think of in terms of support builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily.1935 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 I'm interested to see just how good chillmancer is after this patch. It might be good in PvP which would mean its revival but I'm skeptical that it will have a strong impact on PvE. I'll try it for sure. But it still might be too weak and slow especially compared to scourge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephalem.8921 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > Blood Fiend often dies, it is a fact. Maybe it can survive in very good groups, but most people can’t rely on that. Maybe if you do bosses that are not vg and do some mechanics you will notice that it almost never dies. It only dies if its attacked directly which just doesnt really happen. Old signet trait had some uses in pve, new one just wont get picked in instanced content. No dps buff for necro means another 4months without dps necro in any half decent group. I guess we have to wait for new elite specs. Weaver will get its place back into raid meta and becomes even stronger in fractals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadnir.5038 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > You have still problems reading and understanding (I think you can’t because you are too focused in superficially contesting me. The suggestion I gave to Taril.8619 few messages above could be of great help also to you). I’d appreciate if you would just ignore my messages (unless you can seriously try to understand my thoughts). > > Talking about “minor”, as already wrote, I was excluding all the healing part (as I said Necromancer always had that, it was deep in its design, and it has been expanded), and obviously Scourge, that by design was supposed to be bring support to Necromancer though an Elite Specialization. > > I’ll even copy here the suggestion I was talking about: > _A suggestion: if you don’t want to get stuck in “endless discussions”, focus on trying to understand the point of view of the other person, try to do that assuming that the other person is not contradicting itself. Usually it makes much easier to understand the others, you can apply that even when judging balance patches._ Yeah, let's do it like that. Like you suggest I'll just ignore your posts. I'm not "happy" with this patch while you are. I have my own argument that you yourself ignore so it's fine to just ignore each other I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Storm.6974 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 > @"Nephalem.8921" said: > > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > Blood Fiend often dies, it is a fact. Maybe it can survive in very good groups, but most people can’t rely on that. > > Maybe if you do bosses that are not vg and do some mechanics you will notice that it almost never dies. It only dies if its attacked directly which just doesnt really happen. > Old signet trait had some uses in pve, new one just wont get picked in instanced content. No dps buff for necro means another 4months without dps necro in any half decent group. I guess we have to wait for new elite specs. Weaver will get its place back into raid meta and becomes even stronger in fractals. Hi. There are also several Fractals where it often dies, and some Strike Missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowmoon.7986 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > @"Nephalem.8921" said: > > > @"Black Storm.6974" said: > > > Blood Fiend often dies, it is a fact. Maybe it can survive in very good groups, but most people can’t rely on that. > > > > Maybe if you do bosses that are not vg and do some mechanics you will notice that it almost never dies. It only dies if its attacked directly which just doesnt really happen. > > Old signet trait had some uses in pve, new one just wont get picked in instanced content. No dps buff for necro means another 4months without dps necro in any half decent group. I guess we have to wait for new elite specs. Weaver will get its place back into raid meta and becomes even stronger in fractals. > > Hi. There are also several Fractals where it often dies, and some Strike Missions. Fights where blood fiend tends to die: Raids: vg and sab, at dhuum at 10% Fractals: none unless you group does so low dps that mobs dont die so they end up killing the fiend, which if you are using a signet build, you probably are doing low dps Strikes: whisper because all minions die at 75 and 25%, still a better pick than vamp signet because you have to range boss at 25% . Cold war and polar bears are more optimal not to run fiend because it tends to pull agro from the group, but they do not die. The polar bear hammer smash it once, and stare at it in confusion. All other strikes, no issues. As someone who does all the raid t4 fractals and strikes on necro because I enjoy the class flavor, and have the logs to prove it, this is pretty much the experience i have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now